Originally posted by caballeraArtsy?!😑 Wtf are you talking about?
glad someone agrees with 28 days later...bummer on that one. i like "art" films and independent films very much but this one was one of those self-consciously trying too hard to fit in artsy stuff that did not help the film at all. but the ideas in it were great. i'd like to see it done better.i thought big fish was fantastic. surely not burton's best, but pretty f-ing great.
i like your sig, myth. i hated 28 days later as well...trash.
T3 was SO much worse than T2...the whole thing seemed half-assed to me, with the exception of a couple good action scenes. the storyline was garbage...it's like they stopped caring. and danes is not a goddamn action actress...she's very good at crying with that quivering lip thing and she should stick to that.
Originally posted by Kes
Artsy?!😑 Wtf are you talking about?
the director himself said he was going for something totally different with a 'stylized' horror flick. the editing surely tries to be artsy. not to mention pointless shots through a sheet of plastic that do nothing for the film. the whole sequence with the girls in those evening gowns (hey, where'd they get those?) held captive by the soldiers was like a bad student art film.
most people dissing 28 Days Later don't even appear to be big horror fans..............if you're not a fan of the genre, you have no right to say the movie is bad.......your opinion is biased from the start as you don't like horror movies.
- Having watched Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, Jeepers Creepers, etc. and a few Freddy/ Jason movies doesn't make you a horror fan................I'm talking real horror movies, not modern mainstream watered down trash thrown into the theater to appeal to the kiddies.
The exception is ofcourse Dario Argento. Without even seeing his title/sig I know he is a horror fan ......by his name alone. Good choice of names at that. He didn't even trash it......he said it was good but he didn't see why people thought it was the best horror movie in 10 years.
I go beyond that. I say 28 Days Later is the best horror film in 17 years.........the best horror film since Hellraiser.
Serious question here Dario........name a horror movie in the past ten years that has been better than 28 Days Later. All I can think of being made in the last 10 years is the Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Wrong Turn, Urban Legend, the Ring, Valentine, Jeepers Creepers, watered down mainstream crap.
I can however think of two exceptions........House on Haunted Hill and Thirteen Ghosts. I actually enjoyed both of those films. Neither are as good as 28 Days Later but still great watches. I do believe they would have been much better had they not been mainstream hollywood movies made with "stars" like Chris Katan, Famke Janson, Taye Diggs, Shannon Elizabeth, Mathew Lillard, etc. Anytime you see a guy playing in a horror movie one week and Scooby Doo, Saturday Night Live, etc. another week you know they could have come up with better casting for the horror movie.
Originally posted by caballeraGoing for something different and artsy are 2 very different things meine freund. The only difference in this movie is that most of it was made using digital cameras to give it the really real look (the final scenes in the cottage were shot on 35mm film).
the director himself said he was going for something totally different with a 'stylized' horror flick. the editing surely tries to be artsy. not to mention pointless shots through a sheet of plastic that do nothing for the film. the whole sequence with the girls in those evening gowns (hey, where'd they get those?) held captive by the soldiers was like a bad student art film.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
most people dissing 28 Days Later don't even appear to be big horror fans..............if you're not a fan of the genre, you have no right to say the movie is bad.......your opinion is biased from the start as you don't like horror movies.
i wouldn't jump the gun there...i love good horror movies; i wouldn't say it's necessarily my favorite genre, but the good ones stick with you.
i'm very familiar with the two classic archetypes of horror films: horror films of the body (ie texas chainsaw massacre) and horror films of the mind (ie the shining). a good horror film of the body is usually comical, as well as gruesome, whereas the horror films of the mind simply chill you to the bone.
i'm not saying i'm an afficionado, but i appreciate the genre, and i know what i like. (by the way, the evil dead movies are classics...sam raimi is a genius.)
i thought ringu (the original japanese version) was a fantastic horror film of the mind...evil dead, i know you said the ring (i'm assuming the american version) was mainstream crap, but i don't think you can lump it together with movies like 'scream' and 'i know what you did last summer' etc. it's a step up.
that said, i still think 28 days later was a tremendous disappointment. it could be because i had a lot of friends who praised it to no end, so i started with very high expectations. but i watched it again and tried to be as objective as i could and still thought it was poorly executed. some scenes were well-done (the shots of an emptied london; almost any scene with the father who becomes infected). but overall, it just wasn't good. hence it made my good idea/bad movie list.
Originally posted by Evil DeadI admit I'm not a 'true horor fan' as you put it, but I must object to the implication the Scream was watered down mainstream crap. It was a genius idea, briliantly executed and even you have to admit that it revived horror, if only for a time
most people dissing 28 Days Later don't even appear to be big horror fans..............if you're not a fan of the genre, you have no right to say the movie is bad.......your opinion is biased from the start as you don't like horror movies.- Having watched Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, Jeepers Creepers, etc. and a few Freddy/ Jason movies doesn't make you a horror fan................I'm talking real horror movies, not modern mainstream watered down trash thrown into the theater to appeal to the kiddies.
Serious question here Dario........name a horror movie in the past ten years that has been better than 28 Days Later. All I can think of being made in the last 10 years is the Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Wrong Turn, Urban Legend, the Ring, Valentine, Jeepers Creepers, watered down mainstream crap.
I can however think of two exceptions........House on Haunted Hill and Thirteen Ghosts. I actually enjoyed both of those films. Neither are as good as 28 Days Later but still great watches. I do believe they would have been much better had they not been mainstream hollywood movies made with "stars" like Chris Katan, Famke Janson, Taye Diggs, Shannon Elizabeth, Mathew Lillard, etc. Anytime you see a guy playing in a horror movie one week and Scooby Doo, Saturday Night Live, etc. another week you know they could have come up with better casting for the horror movie.
I agree with alot of what you guys have said.........and I applaud those of you who admit that "hey, I'm only a casual fan.....I watch horror movies that look good but it's not my favorite genre and I'm not an afficianado on the subject".......
The Ring........not really a step above. The only real difference is it about adult characters, not teenagers. If you put a teenager in the title role it becomes just like the other modern horror movies. It was a decent watch.......hell, I bought the dvd. I watch it every now and again when I can't think of anything else I havn't seen recently.
Ringu..........I'd say it is about par with the American version. I'm not going to jump on the Japanese horror bandwagon and say that it was better simply because it was the original and made on a smaller budget. It was decent.........but I'd say no better, no worse than the Ring.
Scream.........damn good movie. I like it. I own all three (the box set) on dvd. The first one is really good. It stands head and shoulders above the rest of the modern horror movies. Very innovative. The sequels sucked.......sorry, but they did, badly. The movie is good as I've stated........but I don't rank it high on my horror list because it's not all horror. Some of the most important elements of the film...some of the best elements are not horror related. While it is primarily a horror flick, it blends several other genre's into it thus watering down it's pure horror apeal to me.
Punker........I like some of those movies too. I'm not bashing them saying they are no good........I'm saying in comparison to other horror movies they aren't that great. I like Urban Legend......I don't know why but I do. Is it a horror movie? yes.........now would I put it on the same list as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Night of the Living Dead? No. I don't know alot about you........but if you havn't seen alot of the best true horror films along with the modern/teenager horror films than you aren't a true horror fan........you might appreciate the modern horror sub-genre but the entire genre of horror in general is what I'm talking about. If somebody is a hardcore slasher movie fan but hasn't seen the movies like Psycho, The Amityville Horror, The Shining, Dawn of the Dead, etc.....I wouldn't call them a real horror fan either. They are just fans of the Slasher sub-genre.
I'm not trying to offend anybody so I hope I havn't........I just call it as I see it. If you've seen alot of the all-time great horror films you'll notice that 28 Days Later is not that different. If somebody is primarily an action/comedy/sci-fi movie fan.....ofcourse they're not going to love 28 Days Later. It's a horror movie. It wasn't made to appeal to the action fan who watches a horror movie every now and again. It was made for us die hard horror fans to enjoy and appreciate......and we do.
I'm not going to front or be hypocritical. I own all 3 Scream movies, Urban Legend, The Ring, both Blair Witch movies, all 10 Friday the 13th/Jason movies, all 7 Nightmare on Elm St. movies, Freddy vs. Jason, both Final Destination movies, the sixth sense, House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts and They all on dvd.
The thing is....I also own The Omen, The Amityville Horror, Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead, all 6 Hellraiser movies, The Shining, Carrie, Jaws, Last House on the Left, Phantasm, Demons, The Gate, all 4 of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, all four Critters movies, Children of the Corn, Cujo, Martin, Piranha, Return of the Living Dead, I Spit on Your Grave, In the Mouth of Madness, all 3 Evil Dead movies, etc., etc., etc. on dvd.
I'm not somebody who only watches the new/modern/teenage horror stuff..........I watch all horror. I love horror. There are clearly two different levels of horror I can represent by two movies in one category each.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Night of the Living Dead
Urban Legend
Scream
If somebody asked me which category 28 Days Later belongs in.......in goes in the first one with two of the all time classic horror movies. It doesn't belong anywhere near that second list with Urban Legend and Scream.
Just defending my position.......clarifying. To each his own...........I guess I'm really just saying that if you didn't like 28 Days Later, you're not part of the audience the movie was made for.
Originally posted by caballera
[...]i'm very familiar with the two classic archetypes of horror films: horror films of the body (ie texas chainsaw massacre) and horror films of the mind (ie the shining). a good horror film of the body is usually comical, as well as gruesome, whereas the horror films of the mind
I'd put 28days later in the mind category because the whole...I'm alone thing is the basic idea of the film. Not enraged ppl attacking other ppl.
IMO its more psychological then visual. But that my opinion.
I think 28 Days later does a good job blending most of the horror sub-genres (except horror/comedy......they didn't include that subgenre thank god)..........
It has good suspense with a great plot ......psychological
It has a great zombie feel (even though they aren't really zombies)
It has all the gore and attack scenes you could hope for in a slasher flick
okay, enough about this movie......we have gotten way off subject. I'm more to blame for that than anybody else so I will apologize to the creator of this thread for changing the topic.........
now back to the original topic of discussion.
Originally posted by Evil DeadHehe.. I obviously misinterpreted your definition on watered down then.... ~sheepish~
Scream.........damn good movie. I like it. I own all three (the box set) on dvd. The first one is really good. It stands head and shoulders above the rest of the modern horror movies. Very innovative. The sequels sucked.......sorry, but they did, badly. The movie is good as I've stated........but I don't rank it high on my horror list because it's not all horror. Some of the most important elements of the film...some of the best elements are not horror related. While it is primarily a horror flick, it blends several other genre's into it thus watering down it's pure horror apeal to me.
I was just defending it coz it's the frist movie that really ever scared the crap out of me (shows how inexperienced I am, doesn't i?)
Originally posted by Evil DeadSerious question here Dario........name a horror movie in the past ten years that has been better than 28 Days Later. All I can think of being made in the last 10 years is the Scream, I Know What you Did Last Summer, Wrong Turn, Urban Legend, the Ring, Valentine, Jeepers Creepers, watered down mainstream crap.
My personal favorite in the last ten years is "DellaMorte DellaMore" (Cemetery Man). Also "The Kingdom" by Lars von Trier is fantastic and some of the most innovative in the horror genre in many many years
I am not saying there are many horror films in the last ten years that are better, but there are some. (In my opinion of course)
I agree with you, there have been so much mainstream teen horror crap in the last ten years. I hate Scream and IKWYDLS, the Ring(Japanese Version), however, I think is OK.